My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
012114
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 2:58:01 PM
Creation date
1/21/2014 2:59:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/20/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
65852. All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land <br /> throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of <br /> ones. <br /> Existing Subjective Density Standard <br /> This historic preservaticn task force process resulted from the conflicts that arose during the last five <br /> years when an activist group grabbed on to the following clause in the Downtown Design Guidelines <br /> to oppose home improvements: <br /> • Floor area of new homes and additions to existing homes are to be compatible with <br /> surrounding houses. <br /> Having that subjective standard applied actively by the Staff, neighbor groups, and Planning <br /> Commission led to multiple home improvements which met the 40% FAR standard being subjected to <br /> shouting matches over density at the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> The revised Guidelines modify that clause to read: <br /> • The mass and bulk of new single-family homes and additions to existing single-family homes <br /> are to be compatible with homes in the immediate area. . . <br /> Either wording is just an invitation to determine permitted density on a case by case basis in shouting <br /> matches at City public hearings. That clause should simply be deleted from the proposed Downtown <br /> -lesign Guidelines. <br /> Remaining Issues: <br /> 1. Date when history begins. The key is that whatever year you pick, you still need rules that allow <br /> properties constructed before that date to be rehabilitated and improved. I have no problem with <br /> 1942 as the date. <br /> 2. Must still meet California Register criteria. Moreover, a building's mere existence before say 1942 <br /> does not make a building a historic structure: It still has to meet strict criteria under the California <br /> Register. Mediocre old buildings can still be replaced. <br /> 3. Local criteria? The Director of Community Development has confirmed to Planning Commission <br /> and City Council that Pleasanton is not adopting local historic resource criteria different and more <br /> stringent than the California Register criteria. <br /> 4. Mandatory Guidelines? The Director of Community Development has confirmed to Planning <br /> Commission that inclusion in the Downtown Specific Plan of a mandate to comply with the Downtown <br /> Design Guidelines will not be interpreted to make "should's" in the Guidelines into "shall's" —those <br /> suggestive guidelines will remain suggestive rather than mandatory. <br /> ;. Surcharge on "Historic Resource" properties? It is burden enough to have your property <br /> Designated a "Historic Resource". To charge those property owners for the cost of the Historic <br /> Resource Survey whenever they improve their properties, as planned, would be an undue burden. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.